Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!rocksanne!sunybcs!kitty!larry From: larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) Newsgroups: net.columbia Subject: Re: Range safety system Message-ID: <780@kitty.UUCP> Date: Sun, 2-Feb-86 23:09:35 EST Article-I.D.: kitty.780 Posted: Sun Feb 2 23:09:35 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 7-Feb-86 08:19:43 EST References: <313@tellab3.UUCP> Organization: Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, NY Lines: 26 > ... With Khadaffi threatening terrorism in America, it just makes > me afraid that the shuttle would be a prime target for an attack. I hate > to consider this as a real possibility, however, so someone in the know, > please prove this wrong! In view of the present "situation" between the U.S. and Libya, sabotage was the very first thought which crossed my mind upon learning of the shuttle disaster. Within the first 60 seconds of launch, the shuttle not only provides an immense infrared signature which even the most unsophisticated heat-seeking surface-to-air missle could not miss, but is within range of several varieties of such a man-packed missile. In light of all the data disclosed by NASA, this seems now to be improbable as the actual cause of the disaster. I would assume that NASA and the U.S. military was aware of this possibility prior to launch, and maintained some type of surveillance of the land and water area surrounding the launch site; I don't suspect that NASA or the military will comment on their precautions for security reasons. However, a well-concealed person with a man-packed SAM within range, but off the NASA base would be difficult to detect... ==> Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York <== ==> UUCP {decvax|dual|rocksanne|rocksvax|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry <== ==> VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice|shell}!baylor!/ <== ==> FAX 716/741-9635 {G1, G2, G3 modes} duke!ethos!/ <== ==> seismo!/ <== ==> "Have you hugged your cat today?" ihnp4!/ <==